The Illinois Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling and found that the state’s ban on sex offenders entering public parks is constitutional.
Other Media
Quick Take on Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Issued Thursday, April 5
Related posts
-
IL: How do scores of Chicagoans arrested for sex crimes stay off the sex offender registry once convicted?
Source: nbcchicago.com 10/22/24 When John heard the news on a recent Friday, it hit him hard:... -
IL: New Illinois law clarifies rules on AI-generated child pornography
Source: myjournalcourier.com 8/13/24 Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed into law legislation clarifying that Illinois’ existing child... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after...
Horrible, horrible unanimous decision in the Illinois Supreme Court today upholding this awful law: “It is unlawful for a sexual predator or a child sex offender to knowingly be present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park.” Not for any reason — to attend a concert, ride you bike, play golf, or (in Chicago) visit the Art Institute (on park property). The guy who was convicted was just walking his dog. You don’t have to go near a playground or approach a child, just BE PRESENT in the park!
More notes of the devastating Illinois decision:
If you read the decision (which the moderator provided), you wonder did these guys ever take Logic 101. In paragraph 22, they argue that the US Supreme Court has accepted “a frightening and high risk of recidivism” for convicted sex offenders. Then in paragraph 24 they admit that the “social science” of the defendant’s “empirical studies” is “convincing,” but then bow down to the legislature, “which is in a better position than the judiciary to gather and evaluate data bearing on complex problems.” So, first they rely on the US Supreme Court’s incorrect data, then they admit it was wrong, but then say they must defer to the politicians. What a garbled argument!
I think the strategy should be to challenge this ruling in the US Supreme Court, and once and for all get them to admit their recidivism statistics were flawed. Can you do that? Not sure what the unfortunate Mr. Pepitone’s lawyers will do. Typically they have been working on this for a long time (since 2013 with innumerable motions, postponements, trials, etc), probably without much remuneration. Now that it’s remanded, what court does that go to? The Appellate?
The law was Section 11-9.4-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012. So, if there’s a subsequent positive decision based on ex post facto, anyone convicted before 2012 would be exempt, right?
I also notice that the decision was unanimous, no judge dissented. Amazing! Did no one read the excellently reasoned Appellate opinion?
Also, you might want to note that Mr. Pepitone had parked his car illegally (“across three spaces”) and attracted the attention of a passing cop. So, if you’re thinking of enjoying one of Illinois’ beautiful parks this summer, don’t do anything noticeable!
Disgusting
The judiciary just ceded, and delegated all their authority to the legislature. So much for a system of checks and balances . Now anytime there is a conflict with state, or state administrative law all the state has to do is point to this decision and say “the legislature knows best.”
Keep electing Ds & Rs and expect different. The definition of insanity!
At least this court sent it back to the lower court to review ex-post challenge advanced by Mr.Pepitome
Excellent comments and observations here. I hope this gets appealed to which ever court is next after the state supreme court.
Which court would be next to appeal to? I don’t know the ground to appeal on, but if they can find some, hope they appeal.
A devastating decision, indeed. And one that includes some of the same flawed reasoning that went into IML. On page 8, paragraph 20 of this decision, the justices list a number of cases of sexual assaults against minors in parks, but fail to say whether any of those cases included an already-convicted sex offender defendant. I don’t suppose anyone has the time to look into those cases, but it would be interesting to know the truth about them. IML has the same fallacy — IIRC, the legislation points to numbers of cases of child sexual abuse by Americans abroad, without specifying whether any of those cases included registrants.
Attorney Katherine Strohl, representing Pepitone, the defendant, submitted this written commentary to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on today’s IL Supreme Court opinion:
“I am very disheartened that the Illinois Supreme Court has signed off on a presence restriction statute that has immeasurable cultural, political, recreational, educational, and familial ramifications for those to whom it applies, and which has no rational relationship to preventing child victimization.
“Sex offenders” are politically powerless and thus rely on the Court to perform its function of judicial review. In asking the Court to uphold the Appellate Court’s decision that the parks ban is unconstitutional, the Court was tasked with ensuring that the General Assembly had not enacted a statute that infringed on the constitution. However, the Court explained that regardless of how convincing the social science Defendant presented may be, the Court is not a “superlegislature.”
People who have been convicted of a sex crime are not a uniform group of people, though they are uniformly despised. But as despised as they may be, it is important to remember that they have already paid their debt to society and are now entitled to the same constitutional rights as every other taxpayer and citizen. Instead, they are the target of unrelenting legislation that is based on neither fact nor reason, and which courts across the country continue to give legislatures free license to enact.”
So tragic. Strohl has not announced what further recourse is being considered. Hard to imagine that after fighting so long (and so brilliantly) that she will just quit.
By the way, judges on the Illinois Supreme Court are elected for 10-year terms, so there is clearly a political factor playing here.
Also, if you’re into this and and want to read the previous Appellate Court decision, which was in Pepitone’s favor and was overturned today, here’s that link. Clearly it was much better reasoned and, in my opinion, much more lawful. You can skip ahead to the good parts in paragraphs 22-25:
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/3rdDistrict/3140627.pdf
Does this law apply to those who have committed any type of sex offense (including mooning, possession of CP, an 18 year old having consensual sex with his 17 year old GF, public urination, etc. etc. etc.) or is it limited to someone convicted of sexual assault on a child? Obviously many types of sex offenses in no way suggest that a person is liable to sexually assault a child, in a park or anywhere else.
Janice, I think the decision today does NOT have a leg to stand on with the incompetence of the court not lifting a finger to prove their decision and thus needs to move forward in the courts, esspecially with the FACTS presented to thier deaf ears. The facts were on the table and were CLEARLY INDISPUTABLE… The only way we could lose this is through Stubbornness which was unprofessionaly displayed today. This is an easy win with the facts that gave us a win in the lower courts and with SCOTUS beginning to fix this out of control disaster that is growing by the minute!!!! The courts judges who unanimously made this horrible ruling should be punished by a higher court.
Another example of stupid, clueless judges. I mean how can you bring up a case with a moron that still thinks that all offenders are dangerous because that’s the ‘safe and popular’ thing to think? At this point it will take a direct head-on case against the registry that is backed by loads of empirical evidence. One screw-up by a lawyer who didn’t do his homework after getting a nice big oversized check in their pocket could possibly destroy their one chance to tackle the registry and make it nearly impossible for future plaintiffs to win.
Elected judges make me sick.
They are even worse than the elected politicians that started this mess, because the judiciary has to completely fail at its job to keep the legislation in check to rule like they did here.
The only chances are in federal courts, with appointed judges.
In this case, all these Supreme’s ruled like the one ignorant dissenter on the 3 panel appeals court.
This “It’s the legislature’s job to change laws” BS should be grounds for immediate removal from the bench. It is Law 101, that the judiciary MUST step in and provide strict scrutiny whenever a law targets a politically powerless and hated group. The group DOES NOT have to be a “protected class” either. That only becomes a factor when a law targets all individuals equally, but disadvantages a protected class more than others. This law specifically and only targets an identified hated group. These judges need to go, but won’t, because they are elected by the same people that want laws targeting the people they fear, hate, or just don’t understand and want suppressed at any cost.
Furthermore, they are absolute cowards to not address the indisputable evidence that “frightening and high” was incorrect. They don’t even deserve to be anywhere in a field of law, or one that has anything to do with the Constitution.
Maybe SCOTUS would take this case, like they did Packingham, when North Carolina’s Supreme Court also did the cowardly thing of deferring to legislature instead of protecting the US Constitution like it’s lower appeals court did.
I don’t get it. What do parks have to do with sexual offending? Not only do former offenders get blasted, but so do parks get labeled as dangerous places that attract offenders. They will have all of us hiding in our homes (or underpasses) and every place privatized and off limits. Ironically, this is where most of the offenses occur in homes.
This opinion states Section 11-9.4-1(b) is punishment (“It punishes conduct by sex offenders” ¶ 26).
I thought all the restrictions against sex offenders were merely a civil regulatory scheme.
Calling for all sex offenders in Illinois, and sex offenders from other states to visit parks in Illinois to rally against this politicized Illinois Supreme Court decision and unconstitutional. Drop leaflets throughout the parks in Illinois stating that a “Convicted Sex Offender” was rightfully using her or his public park.
Please be fully aware that a lot of area in Chicago constitutes as public parkland. All of Lake Shore Drive (U.S. Route 41) that spans from the far north side of Chicago deep into the city’s south side is inside a public parkland. The Museum of Science of Industry, and Museum Campus (this campus includes the Field Museum, Shedd’s Aquarium, and Planetarium) and the Lincoln Park Zoo and other museums are inside public parks. There are also golf courses, tennis courts, restaurants, and event theater arts that are located inside Chicago public parks. Grant Park, Chicago’s cultural parkland (known as the city’s front yard) hosts cultural festivals such as the Taste of Chicago and Jazz Fest, and is home to Chicago’s Institute of Art. There is also Millennium Park that is an urban theme park of cultural and historical exhibits.
Don’t be fooled by the ignorance of the Illinois Supreme Court. Get out and use the parks in Illinois because it is everyone’s right! No legislative or judicial branch of government can ever deny any citizen the right to use public service!
Defy the Illinois Supreme Court System and defy the unconstitutional law in Illinois that wrongfully prohibits a sex offender from using a public park – and let your presence in Illinois be visible by dropping leaflets or signs throughout the parks. Tag street lights, lamp posts, trees, and park facilities with your tracks of convicted sex offender presence because it is YOUR RIGHT to use the park to your liking.
Fight for your rights!
WOW
I don’t see how the courts think it is rational to base laws on urban legend and wishful thinking. What is a law if it is ineffective? How well can a law be effective if it ignores reality?